The Court of Appeal has dismissed Lawrence Shields’s appeal against the refusal of leave to bring judicial review proceedings over damaged banknotes with a face value of €4,400. It held that he had no arguable standing to challenge the Central Bank’s decision to withhold the notes and refuse their exchange while a Garda investigation was under way. A separate question about costs for the notice parties was left for a short hearing.
The Central Bank’s decision, dated 15 May 2020, followed notice from An Garda Síochána that it had begun investigating the source of the funds. The Bank relied on Article 3(3)(b) of a European Central Bank decision, which allows damaged notes to be withheld as evidence where a criminal offence is believed to have been committed. The Bank said the notes would qualify for exchange after the investigation unless the competent authorities decided otherwise.
The application to exchange the notes had been made by the solicitors J.T. Flynn & Co. The judgment records that Shields had transferred the notes to the firm as payment for professional fees. Shields argued that he had an interest because he supplied the money and might remain liable for fees if the notes were not exchanged. The Court of Appeal said that claim had not been supported by affidavit evidence. It concluded that he had transferred ownership, had not applied to the Bank himself, and was a stranger to the solicitors’ application.
On appeal, Shields also argued that he was the target of the Garda investigation. The court said that even if he were, this did not give him standing to challenge the Bank’s decision about the notes. The reliefs he had sought concerned withholding and exchange; he had not sought to challenge the separate decision to refer the matter to Gardaí or the Bank’s formation of a belief that an offence may have been committed. The court said that setting aside the withholding decision would not undo the referral or stop the investigation.
The court also dismissed the appeal against the refusal to add J.T. Flynn & Co. as a co-applicant. It held that the firm’s application was outside the time limit for judicial review and that joinder could not be used to bypass that limit. No grounds had been established for an extension. The court found it unnecessary to examine prematurity and did not address a new jurisdiction argument raised on appeal.
The High Court had ordered Shields to pay the Central Bank’s and notice parties’ costs. The Court of Appeal left the notice parties’ costs issue for a short hearing, with the Registrar to contact the parties about a date.